News Jul 4, 2012 at 4:00 am

Understanding the Fight Over Building a New Arena to Bring Back the Sonics

Comments

1
It's so odd to have to weight these things according to which side lies to us first, which side lies the most, which side's lies betray the lowest opinion of the public's ability to spot bullshit.

But since we have to evaluate things that way, let's.
2
Socialized costs, privatized profits. Fuck 'em. Either have the sufficient capital to begin a business here on your own, in which case go ahead and keep your share of the profits, or if you're going to rely on the taxpayer for even a fraction of investment, then you owe the taxpayer a direct return.
3
"Never put it past a billionaire's lawyer to figure out how to break a contract."

Key Arena's contract wasn't broken, it was settled for more than the bonds.

Enough money for Nick Licata to siphon off $1.5 million dollars to fund his "theater district" infrastructure line item in the 2009 city budget, almost unnoticed.
Almost.
4
If the "dealbreaker" is that some homeowners will have to pay $3 more in property taxes, I think it will move ahead.
5
@1 Sums it up perfectly, thank you.
6
Quit the 180. "And economic "substitution"—wherein the arena draws entertainment spending dollars from other venues and businesses—means that every dollar spent at the arena is a lost opportunity for the city's and county's coffers to benefit from taxing a dollar that might have been spent elsewhere" - sorry but that is utter and complete bullshit. As the Times economist out it, this is one of the best arena deals in the nation and it would be idiotic for the Seattle to reject it. The port argument is bullshit too. Over and out.
7
@ #4 exactly. And I wonder how many "homeowners" are people that argue on the internetz. And jn fact, Goldy, the $200 million will be paid back from rent/revenues from the arena. Or did you already forget that...
8
However, this proposal only deals with the building of an arena - it says nothing about what it will cost to bring in TEAMS to play in that arena.
Team owners have a near certain penchant for requiring 'concessions' on the part of the city/taxpayers/arena owner/state government/county government/and anyone else they can think of.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but the arena is EASY, its the team owners that are total pricks.
9
"Nothing against professional sports, but they're just not worth the public investment."

Oh yeah Goldy, that was totally balanced.
10
you ignore the key questions.

1. why isn't this privately financed? lenders have a TON of cash. what do they know, that we don't know?

2. if we're the key component, why are we settling for just a measly 6% return instead of that plus an upside equity position? key venture capitalists are supposed to get the 1,0000% upside potential.

3. how are we protected form risk if ballmer and hansen aren't giving personal guarantees, with a pledge to maintain certain cash and asset positions and to report regularly? ArenaCO can declare bankruptcy, void a lease in bankruptcy, default, etc.

4. if to be truly risk free we need that personal guarantee, why aren't they just financing it out of their own pockets?

5. even if the above is answered, how is this more important than roads, schools, health generally, why is it govt. business to help billionaires get rich team ownership changes, to help millionaire ball players and to help the upper and middle class who pay $100 a night for tickets?
11
"The Sonics had a nonrelocation agreement, too, and yet we got bullied into letting them out of it early. Never put it past a billionaire's lawyer to figure out how to break a contract."

Learn from history.
None of the "guarantees" actually guarantee anything.

If this deal was so good then the millionaires looking to profit from it would find private financing and keep the profits themselves.
12
A facebook page for people opposed to a new arena...
http://www.facebook.com/NoMoreStadiumsSe…
13
A facebook page for people who oppose a new arena...
http://www.facebook.com/NoMoreStadiumsSe…
14
Other than the fact that people like basketball, and it's entertaining, I've yet to see any reasonable argument for why spending tax payer money on this arena is a good investment for the city. I've never been compelled by any of the arguments that say that it's a huge boost to the local economy. EVERY business in Seattle is good for the local economy, so why do sports teams, a private business, get the special treatment of getting their facilities built for them? Should we start building facilities for other local businesses, such as Microsoft and Amazon? They're a boost to our economy too. (Sorry about the double post earlier)
15
And if we must build a new arena, and if Key Arena is so "useless," why isn't tearing Key Arena down and building a new facility at that location an option that's being discussed? The SODO area has two stadiums and a port already, not to mention that it's all landfill land.
16
"40 percent of the estimated $490 million cost" is paid by the city

seems to me this should be in the CON column, along with the lost property tax revenues.

17
It's so "in the bag". That is why the arena people are freaking the fuck out:

http://sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=2222#co…

Fuck yeah, build it in Bellevue.
18
The potential $3 bump in your property tax bill has nothing to do with paying off the arena debt.
19
@Booker well to answer your questions 1) it would take more $ to tear down & build back up KeyArena not to mention they'd still need a place to play in the meantime (No the Tacoma Dome isn't an option) 2) the difference between a new Microsoft/ Amozon building and this is those companies wouldn't build their building then give it to the city to own and the pay the city monthly rent for it which is what happens in this arena deal. Let's say you (the city) had your XBOX (Sonics) stolen from your home and I (Hansen) was pissed too because I used to come over and play w/ you. So I say I'll buy you a new XBOX if you buy the contollers for it seperatly. Not only that but I'll reimburse you for them when I get paid next AND buy you new games not to mention cover any costs if the new XBOX or games don't work properly just so we can play together like the old days. You mean to say you'd have a problem loaning me the $ for the controllers? That sounds awfully short sighted no? This scenario is very similar to what I've described here.
20
@ KeyQuestions those questions on garaunteed money are answered in the MOU see www.sonicsarena.com for more detail. As for the question of why we could use those bonds for a school or road is because the bond must be paid back and schools/roads don't generate the revenue to do so it's not the same type of transaction not to mention the city will make additional money past what is bonded out well past the time the bond is repaid
21
@19 I like the analogy.
23
An effing city-wide monorail system --- that's what this town really needs. (21st century, anyone?????)

There's nothing "21st century" about a monorail. I rode a monorail at Disneyland in 1969. A monorail is just an elevated train with one track instead of two. It's a stylistic update of 19th century technology.

21st century technology would involve computer-guided electric cars.
25
The monorail is very 21st century, that's why they've suddenly decided to build it in Cali-land.

Could you please put the joint down and write a coherent comment?
26
p.s.: Who's Rob?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.